Thursday, November 27, 2014

Kinder Morgan. Economist Robyn Allan in TYEE. Corporate Robbers in British Columbia. The National Energy Board …. A part of the story Robyn Allan doesn’t tell.

The story is so large, so corrupt, so – to many, many ordinary Canadian eyes – so criminal - Robyn Allan couldn’t possibly have told all of the Terasen/BC Transmountain Pipeline System story. More has to be laid out. British Columbians must know, first, that the National Energy Board is their enemy – and they must treat it – openly – as that. (Other enemies are more obvious.)

In his 2014 book PARTY OF ONE, about Stephen Harper, Michael Harris writes (p. 153) that in a policy paper “generated by bureaucrats in Harper’s International Trade Ministry” the National Energy Board (NEB) is described as “an ‘ally’ of the Harper government’s resource development plans.”

Anyone who has had doubts, at all, will see in what follows that Stephen Harper is a major enemy – probably enemy Number One. And he has made the National Energy Board his lackey. Need we say more?

In the article – in brief – she makes clear the intimate ENRON connections of Richard Kinder. (ENRON, for those who have forgotten, is the gigantic U.S. Energy corporation built on accounting fraud to revenues of around $111 billion in 2001 before it exploded and bankrupted in a corruption scandal lasting years and costing honest, trusting people $ billions.) She makes clear, as well, Richard Kinder’s brilliance as a tax juggler (and evader), and his brilliance in slipping the former Canadian corporation based in Vancouver, Terasen, and its holding - the Trans-Mountain Pipeline System - into wholly U.S. hands and almost as wholly into a life under U.S. law.

What almost NOBODY mentions now is that a few short years ago, the pipeline causing the present Burnaby Mountain actions - and the corporation to which it was attached - made up A WHOLLY, PEOPLE-OWNED, BRITISH COLUMBIA OPERATION feeding revenue into support for education, healthcare, etc.

Let’s put it simply. A plan was put into effect – beginning about fifteen years ago - to rob British Columbians of their public corporations (and the wealth they generated), and to hand all to U.S. private corporations. The plan was also to impoverish British Columbians and to teach them to live in poverty. Terasen’s demise was only a part.

The major activity of the sell-out happened under Gordon Campbell’s Right-leaning Liberal government when Christie Clark was Deputy Premier and (later) judged to be a violator of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms as Minister of Education. That attack on Public Education was a part of the movement to “the privatization of everything”, including the education of B.C.’s children – a still on-going, as yet uncompleted program.

For those saying the RCMP officers on Burnaby Mountain arresting demonstrators are very nice fellows who are just doing a job that our splendid Rule Of Law in Canada forces upon them – it’s time to re-think!

It is a fact (read Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun, Nov. 24 and Nov.27) that the injunction gained by Kinder Morgan against the demonstrators is a highly dubious legal tactic rejected by a number of judges and ex-judges. As well … the RCMP in British Columbia has a growing reputation as - to put the matter plainly – a corrupt organization. Never mind the unexamined (but much rumoured) RCMP role in the Pickton Farm Missing Women story. Stay with “politics”.

Many believe premier Glen Clark (the late 1990s) was set up, vilified, falsely investigated, and politically ruined by a mafia group made up of the Gordon Campbell interests (political and corporate), the Mainstream Press and Media, and the RCMP … with the unfortunate assistance of certain forces in the higher courts of British Columbia. (More on that aspect later.)

I didn’t like the smell of the RCMP investigation of Glen Clark. I wrote to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP asking for a review of the investigation (which was rumoured to be improper). The Commission (in my experience) appears to be a front organization employed to prevent serious investigation and action. The review I asked for began. I received non-informative monthly notes. Then it was stopped by two Vancouver RCMP officers who informed me that 28 volumes of evidentiary material on Glen Clark had been put at the disposal of prosecutors. (Remember: when he was successfully ruined, the judge on the case declared Glen Clark innocent of all charges against him.)

I asked for the review to continue – to find if the RCMP had investigated Glen Clark improperly. I received no answer. I waited. And I waited. And I waited. Almost THREE YEARS LATER I received a report by the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP on the investigation of Glen Clark by the RCMP in British Columbia. The Report was short. It informed me that the two officers of the RCMP had IMPROPERLY closed the review I asked for.

Then the Report advised me that The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP had decided to leave it up to the “discretion” of the B.C. RCMP whether it would open up the review I had asked for and continue it! Readers will have to guess what the Vancouver RCMP decided ….

In almost every dirty, large, BC political activity thereafter, I believe the RCMP has come out with dirty hands.

The bastard privatization of BC Ferries began early in the 2000s and has been a disaster. Readers of the legislation creating the “privatized” entity can see its sham nature. Not only was the move a way to get “fake” revenue for government, but it was a privatization that wasn’t privatization. The expensive Ferry Commissioner structure is, in my judgement, a useless, paper creation. The BC government still calls the shots – and places its cronies onto the unnecessary and useless Board of Directors – paying them well. At the same time the “privatized” corporation pays its top administrators hockey-star salaries as the organization they run sinks deeper and deeper into the slime of privatization.

Ordinary British Columbians and the economy of the coastal communities are being savaged. But who cares, for privatization is continuing.

THE BIG BC PRIVATIZATION which is, strangely, hardly talked about is the privatization of what was BC GAS. That was the publicly-owned corporation operating the transmountain pipeline which is being fought over on Burnaby Mountain… and more. BC GAS, I have been told, twinned with BC Hydro. The two worked together, making modernizations possible and good budgeting, balanced books, and contributions to B.C. General Revenues in support of education, health care, and other public needs.

The huge pressure for ‘privatization’ came (globally) as the fight-back of the corporations intensified, greedy for the money that was – after the Second World War – going into social needs and the decent living of the population. That was when private corporations began bribing, coercing, threatening, undermining, mating with, and otherwise taking over governments.

And so it was under a New Democratic government in B.C. that BC GAS was permitted to “go private”. The politics of that needs research! But the NDP was “going right” with the tide, was beginning its more than decade-long sell-out, its acceptance of privatization policies, of “Free Trade” Agreements, of the falsehood that lower taxes on private corporations spur employment … and more.

The NDP, however, demanded that the privatized BC GAS, now called TERASEN be headquartered in British Columbia and remain in Canadian hands. As soon as Gordon Campbell took power (after the rigged destruction of Glen Clark and the BC NDP) work was started on selling Terasen to U.S. interests. At the same time, David Hahn, Gordon Campbell’s personal pick for head of the bastard privatization of BC Ferries, spent his first three years or so travelling the globe in an attempt to dump BC Ferries onto anyone in the world who would buy it. But potential buyers were all too smart….

And so BC Ferries became, as I see it, a private club for Gordon Campbell government and friends and associates … to play with (creating cruise-style monsters) and to squeeze for any cash that could come out of it.

Public concern wouldn’t let BC Hydro go the same way. And so it is being wrecked more carefully. Divided now into three parts, one part was handed to a portion of the Scandal Prince called ENRON, a portion that managed to slip away and rename. And so Accenture – a private corporation - has the management of a third of BC Hydro. A new entity has been formed to manage the distribution of power created by BC Hydro – and it, apparently, is overseen by a major U.S. private, continental energy manager.

The privatized run-of- the-river creations (of the Gordon Campbell/Christie Clark governments) are – to my mind – such a scandal of corrupt contracts and environmental disasters they need a Royal Commission Inquiry with the full right granted to the Commission to recommend criminal charges wherever deemed warranted. Whatever development of the energy resources of British Columbia rivers was to be undertaken, it should have been careful, long-term planned, and minutely managed in the public interest and by public ownership under the BC Hydro banner. Privatization of BC’s waterways has been a financial, engineering, and environmental disaster of gigantic proportions.

BC Ferries, BC Gas, BC Hydro … and BC Rail! Having privatized (profitable) CN Rail and seeing it become a U.S. private corporation headquartered in Texas, privatizer Paul Tellier (an avid and public Continentalist wanting a single currency for North America … and more) came to visit B.C. at the turn of the century. While here, he advocated that (profitable) BC Rail do what CN Rail had done. Gordon Campbell was eager.

It is my contention that the whole ‘privatization’ of BC Rail was corrupt, perhaps criminal. I asked the BC RCMP to begin investigation and it refused. I believe that private corporate interests, ‘inside’ government agencies, and cabinet powers set about to destroy any profitable operation of BC Rail, to undermine it in the public’s eyes, to ready it to hand away … and then, corruptly, to place it in the hands of the Texas people who owned CN Rail.

In order to do that, many, many, many people had to be part of the activity. Three lower-order functionaries – Sikhs incidentally – were charged in a strange and almost accidental set of circumstances. The charges were ballyhoo’d to be the result of a determination to get to the bottom of corruption in the BC Rail Scandal. The three men were, rather, in my mind, used as part of a gigantic cover-up to protect the real criminals in the privatization and giveaway of BC Rail.

Following and reporting on the four years of court action against the men, I came to believe, without doubt, that they were used to cover-up for the real criminals.

And it is here we have to bring in Stephen Harper. His cabinet in Ottawa did two key things. When the judge on the Basi, Virk, and Basi trial was being responsive to the needs of the Defence lawyers, repeatedly ordering evidence be provided to them that would assure a fair defence, she was removed by an action taken by the minister of justice in the Harper cabinet. The judge who replaced Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett was, in my judgement, “a patsy”. Shortly after being placed on the case, she was raised to the position of Associate Chief Justice of the B.C. Supreme Court … and a little later to the Appeals Court of B.C. – all actions of the federal minister of justice acting, we may be sure, in close consultation with Stephen Harper, prime minister.

The switch of judges on the Basi, Virk, and Basi case was managed by Patrick Dohm, then associate chief justice of the B.C. Supreme court. He was the judge who (earlier) signed the search warrant to surprise search (with TV crew accompaniment) the home of premier Glen Clark where no incriminating evidence could be found. Dohm was the judge who later signed the more than twenty search warrants that accompanied the famous (BC Rail related) search warrant “raid” on B.C. legislature offices. He insisted that only one of the homes searched must be forewarned by the police. That just happened to be the home of Christie Clark.

The “raiding” RCMP officers discovered at the address of a lobbyist for a Railway interest certain confidential cabinet documents. He was never charged, nor was he (as far as anyone knows) further investigated. By the merest coincidence he turned out to be Christie Clark’s brother. The investigating RCMP never sought a search warrant for the address of premier Gordon Campbell – an obvious target, and they had a precedent in the search warrant obtained to search the home of then premier Glen Clark. Gordon Campbell’s home, in the minds of many, was much more likely to harbour incriminating evidence than Glen Clark’s home was – perhaps the reason the RCMP avoided Gordon Campbell’s residence.

When the trial was terminated (it wasn’t over), Gordon Campbell had sunk to an historic low in ratings by the population. He might be said to be despised as the story of his privatizations became widely known. What would become of him if he remained (now no longer premier) in British Columbia?

Stephen Harper solved that problem, naming Gordon Campbell to one of the top positions among diplomats of Canada – naming him Canada’s High Commissioner in London, England, where he is living out his life humbly, in the devoted service of the Canadian people. I believe there is evidence in the whole story to suggest that Gordon Campbell and Stephen Harper worked (and work) for the same global private corporate forces which intend to privatize everything and to turn Canadians into paupers and beggars in the process.

To close (though there are pages more that might be said), a brief look at the courts and the RCMP…. I said earlier the RCMP refused to investigate the central actors in the BC Rail Scandal. And throughout the legal proceedings in court the Defence lawyers repeatedly suggested the RCMP was not fully and fairly cooperating and was delaying submission of evidentiary material. My own observation was that the RCMP spent endless time on the three lower-level operatives who were charged and no time on anyone else under suspicion.

I revealed that the Special Crown Prosecutor (who had to work closely, after his appointment in 2003, with the RCMP) had been appointed in flagrant violation of the legislation governing the appointment of Special Prosecutors. And so the investigation - since he was appointed - and the conduct of ALL the court proceedings were in doubt as to their legitimacy. He was, clearly, not legitimate as Special Crown Prosecutor, having been a close associate of both the Attorney General who appointed him and of the Deputy Attorney General.

He was illegitimately in the courtroom as Special Prosecutor. But he had also been working in close relation to the investigative forces of the RCMP from 2003 until the pre-trial began in 2007 … and even after, as an illegitimate appointment. What did that mean about the investigation by the RCMP?

Those matters got worse when I reported to the Chief Justice, the Associate Chief Justice and to the judge on the trial that the Special Crown Prosecutor was illegitimately in the court. I gave them the evidence – which was simple enough. The clearly stated legislation describing the requirements of a Special Crown Prosecutor had been wildly violated, visibly, and incontrovertibly.

The officer of the court who replied to the information I had sent to each of the judges reported to me that since none of the three judges had participated in the appointment of the Special Crown Prosecutor they would do nothing. The fact that the highest court in British Columbia, the Supreme Court, was being used by an illegitimate Crown Prosecutor – and that the Chief Justice and the Associate Chief Justice were responsible for the administration of justice in that court – didn’t interest them. And so I wrote to them again. And they would do nothing, again.

And then, (as I read the situation) to conclude, in order to prevent the trial of the three accused men from revealing information about the major criminals in the BC Rail Scandal, the trial had to be shut down to prevent further cross-examination of witnesses. Street language might say that the accused were bribed into letting the trial end. Six million dollars was paid by government (by B.C. taxpayers, that is) to cover all the costs of the accused. And the charges against them were cleaned of anything important. The trial stopped … without ending.

Who initialed the six million dollars to be paid? No one could find out. And the RCMP, of course, didn’t investigate. The Auditor General of British Columbia tried and tried and tried to find out who authorized the payments – and couldn’t find out. The premier, Christie Clark , and her Attorney General, Shirley Bond, somehow prevented the Auditor General from ever finding out – though he even went to court to force release of the information.

At the beginning of this column I said that the information about Burnaby Mountain, about the Trans Mountain Pipeline System, about the RCMP on Burnaby Mountain arresting demonstrators, about the dubious injunction against the demonstrators, and about the history of Richard Kinder supplied by Robyn Allan doesn’t tell the whole story.

The whole story needs to be told of the determination of the Harper federal cabinet and the Gordon Campbell/Christie Clark cabinet (as an unholy alliance) to privatize everything, to give it to U.S. interests, and to pauperize and make beggars of the British Columbia population ... and in the process to pollute and destroy the environment in which British Columbians live. The whole story needs to be told of how BC GAS was first turned into Terasen (for no worthwhile reason), and was then dumped by the Gordon Campbell government into the lap of Richard Kinder and friends.

If that hadn’t happened (and it shouldn’t have happened) there would be no battle on Burnaby mountain now. The story of Richard Kinder is interesting … and horrible. But the sell-out of British Columbia’s publicly-owned wealth by the Gordon Campbell/Christie Clark team is more interesting to B.C. people – and more horrible.

When that story is known, then the ease with which the Kinder Morgan forces have moved into B.C. and are dictating to the B.C. government, to the Harper government, and to its lackey organization called the National Energy Board becomes as clear as it needs to be.

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

This latest batch of announcements have a strong stench of desperation emanating from, dissecting these corpse announcements is child`s play.

How many LNG export licenses have been granted, too many too count, how many industrial environmental assessments have the BC Liberals turned down?...None, the BC Liberal grifters have approved everything, including Tesako`s proposed prosperity mine, a project so destructive that even Stephen Harper`s Federal Environmental assessment board rejected, rejected it twice...Bill Bennett, Christy Clark`s mining and energy minister even flew to Ottawa on the taxpayer`s dime to beg for Tesako...Ottawa threw Bennett a bone and sent him home, his efforts in vane, ..Ottawa already has suitcases full of cash..Enjoy your jerky treats Billy Bennett..

LNG energy companies, the one thing none of them were ever worried about was getting environmental assessments approved by Christy Clark`s gang...They were all given green-light guarantees that their projects would get approved, ...Remember earlier this year Christy Clark and her grifting cabinet announced an OIC (order in council) that stated that LNG plants and processing stations would not require any environmental assessments....That drew ire and scathing rebuke from First Nations..In an LNG conference in northern B.C. First Nations threw the British Columbia out on their asses after hearing about the OIC through the grapevine....Very quickly the grifters withdrew that OIC, but they didn`t withdraw it, BC Liberals verbally withdrew it..

Emails and messaging was sent through back-channels from the BC Liberals to all the big foreign energy giants that any and all environmental assessments would be approved, companies were told that Environmental assessments merely had to look like due diligence was being used, thus timelines from application to approval had to appear within normal timeline parameters, but be rest assured that approvals were all guaranteed..

However, Petronas has NOT been given a nod from the federal environmental assessment board, also, First Nations will not permit this project to proceed at this site, Petronas`s LNG plant on Lelu will destroy the Skeena river wild salmon population, court challenges will ensue even if the feds give Petronas the nod, and with the latest Supreme court of Canda decision, First Nations do have right of refusal as land owners, this case will be bogged down in court for years if Petronas doesn`t move locations, and move locations they can because....

Aurora LNG proposal for Prince Rupert, a Chinese national energy company proposal..CONOC and NEXEN,, NEXEN company was bought by the Chinese Government...This proposal paid $21 million dollars for several thousand acres on Grassy Point in Prince Rupert...Aurora LNG has decided to move to Digsby Island, ...So..The BC Liberals are just swapping land with them, no more money required, just a cozy little land swapping deal...

CONOC and NEXEN can move locations, so can PETRONAS...Except...Except that the BC Liberals have told PETRONAS that anything they want they get, foreign temporary workers..Sure..Foreign built plants..Sure..No taxation..Sure....Plant build cost write-offs...Sure...Free electricity..Sure..

However, theses BC Liberal grifters do not control the supreme court of CANADA AND CAN`T STOP THE LAW SUITS coming their way...Petronas chose the wrong spot.

"The Government also gave environmental approval for the WestCoast connector gas transmission line.......A natural gas pipeline from Northeast B.C.`s Cyprus area to a Prince Rupert LNG terminal on Ridley Island proposed by British Gas"
___________________

As reported, British Gas is out, having their pipeline route approved is really quite desperate when British Gas has moved on...

______________

“So, as a result of this, coupled with weakness in gas pricing
generally, there is a risk that the market will be very well supplied
post 2020,” he said. “We’re pausing on Prince Rupert to see how the
market evolves, particularly in function of total supply that will come
out of the U.S.”

British Gas...Our gang of grifters approved British Gas`s pipeline yet British Gas is out....Now that`s funny, need more...?..British Gas is not only waiting to see how the USA LNG market pans out they are diving headlong into US LNG....They are spending their money in American LNG and have said good-bye to Canada..

Hello grifters, ....if you really want the Petronas proposal to go forward I suggest you ask them to move locations....Here`s a novel idea...how about Ridley Island!

Here`s someone else speaking on this matter too...John Horgan.

_____________

"Provincial NDP opposition leader John Horgan says he has doubts about
two of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects being planned for the
Prince Rupert area.

Speaking at a stop in Terrace as part of a northwest tour last week,
Horgan noted that one company, the BG Group, has already announced it's
delaying plans for a large LNG plant on Ridley Island.

"I think they're done," said Horgan of the BG Group's project called
Prince Rupert LNG which would involve a facility capable of producing 21
million tonnes of LNG a year.

BG Group's initial plans had forecast a construction period of two phases beginning in 2016.But it announced late last month that it is delaying its Prince
Rupert decision because of its involvement in more advanced LNG
developments in the United States.The company has two projects underway in the United States, one in Louisiana and the other in Texas.

Horgan also focussed on the Pacific NorthWest LNG project, which has
as its majority owner the Malaysian-stated owned Petronas company and
which is slated for a location on Lelu Island within the District of
Port Edward's jurisdiction.

The location has just come under criticism from a number of
aboriginal groups and some residents for potential impacts on the Skeena
River's salmon populations.The project is under a provincial environmental review and Petronas
recently received a 45-day extension of that review to conduct more
work.

"The Skeena River's got some salmon in it," said Horgan of the importance of the river to the region.He did note that the review will shed more light on the impacts of
the planned project on the Skeena River estuary and its salmon-hosting
role.

In some ways, Horgan said the prospects of LNG development in Kitimat are more favourable than around Prince Rupert.

One LNG project at Kitimat, called Kitimat LNG, has a substantial buy-in from aboriginal groups.That includes the Haisla at Kitamaat Village on whose lands the
plant will be built and from virtually all of the First Nations who have
territory over which a natural gas pipeline would run to supply the
facility."

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

J. Horgan: I rise today to
speak to Bill 6, the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act. I'm proud to
stand here following many thoughtful colleagues on both sides of the
House who have offered up their point of view on what has become.

I'm proud to stand here following many
thoughtful colleagues on both sides of the House who have offered up
their point of view on what has become, certainly, a divisive issue if
we listen to the minister just completed and earlier presentations by
other ministers of the Crown.

I'm proud to say that I lead a caucus that
understands the challenge that we have with respect to growing the
economy and understands that we have to take our comparative advantages
where we find them. I support liquefied natural gas in British
Columbia, provided that we support workers in B.C. first, that we
ensure that First Nations are completely dialed in.

Well, we'll get to the details, Minister. We'll get to the details.

…that there is a fair return to the province for the resource, and, most importantly, that we protect our air, water and land.

Now, the challenge, of course, for
government is that they don't understand the role and function in the
British parliamentary system of a vigorous opposition. Instead of
taking thoughtful suggestions in a hope to improve legislation, as we
did — with my colleague from Vancouver–West End — with Bill 2 and as we
will do, I am certain, at committee stage — my colleague from
Surrey-Whalley — to try and improve this legislation as well, especially
when we look back

We've been hearing from all sides of the
House about the promises that were made over the past number of years
by the Premier, the member for — I think it's Kelowna-Westside. Is that
where the Premier is from? I think that's the right one.

She said a number of things. Certainly, back
in 2011 what stands in my mind was a whistle-stop tour she made to
Kitimat, where she promised that there would be an operational LNG
facility by 2015.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Well, I know that the Minister of Energy
doesn't want us to be negative. I don't want to put a negative spin on a
promise that was made to achieve something a month and a half from now
that is just not going to happen. But, again, I think it's the
responsibility of the opposition on behalf of all British Columbians to
highlight deficiencies in rhetoric, certainly, but also to highlight
deficiencies in delivery by the government.

In 2013 the member for Kelowna-Westside said
that the LNG industry in this province would be up and running full
bore by 2020. The BG Group of companies, which had a very favourable
location in Prince Rupert at Ridley Island, has announced recently that
they are pausing any final investment decision they might make.

So I don't see how the 18 — I believe it's
18 companies we're up to now — 18 proposals down to one or two or
three, maybe four, if you listen to the Minister of Energy, who I
suppose would be an expert in the House on energy issues, or one would
hope, in any event. He's taken it down from the 18 promised by the
Premier to one or two, three, maybe four, and, again, I support that. I
am encouraged by that, that there's some realism on the other side of
the House rather than just Pollyanna and awaiting the arrival of El
Dorado, because it's just not so.

I've been travelling around the northwest
over the past couple of weeks, and I spoke with hereditary leaders of
the Wet'suwet'en First Nation. I heard the Minister of Aboriginal
Relations make his intervention today, and he talked about uniform
support. I'm sorry to rain on your parade, Minister, but based on my
discussions with the Wet'suwet'en, that uniform support doesn't exist
at this time, and I'm hopeful that we can all redouble our efforts to
make sure that live up to the requirements laid down by the Supreme
Court and we do achieve some sense of reconciliation and partnership
with First Nations on this file.

We're up and running by 2020 full bore — one
trillion dollars in economic activity. I had to pause when the member
for Victoria–Swan Lake reminded me of that number. I used to think that
trillion was just a little bit past gajillion. You used to use terms
like that when you were in grade 5, you know? It wasn't a realistic
number. It was just something you pulled out of thin air, which reminds
me very much of the Liberal campaign from 2013 and probably why we
have, on Hansard now, recorded the $1 trillion figure in economic activity just right around the corner.

And of course, part and parcel of that would
be our $100 billion prosperity fund. Now, the prosperity fund,
trumpeted before the election…. By requirement you kind of have to talk
about it in the first budget after the election and maybe even make
reference to it in your first official throne speech as a re-elected
government, so we did hear about it in February. But we had, as luck
would have it, two throne speeches this year. Double your chances.
Double your chances to talk about prosperity funds.

[1705]

It's unfortunate that we didn't get to hear
more about the prosperity fund at that time, but we did get to hear and
compare over the past number of days the promises

HSE - 20141124 PM 044/lcg/1705

It's unfortunate that we didn't get to hear
more about the prosperity fund at that time. But we did get to hear and
compare, over the past number of days, the promises and commitments
made by the Minister of Finance in budget documents — which, again,
guide the questions around certainty and uncertainty that some members
have talked about with respect to this sector. You need to have some
certainty.

The sector looked at the government
documents that were tabled by the minister. He said 7 percent — 7
percent. That will be familiar to many people here. That's what we pay
in sales tax and will continue to pay in sales tax, because the
trillion dollars in economic activity apparently isn't happening, and
we're not going to be doing away with the sales tax as a result of our
prosperity fund. Let's remember the 7 percent number. Let's remember
the 7 percent number, because it dropped when this legislation was
tabled — by half.

Now, the Minister of Natural Gas has said
some peculiar things over the past little while. I recall when BG Group
said publicly that they were going to pause. He said: "Oh, I predicted
that would happen." I recall when China and Russia signed hundreds of
billions of dollars' worth of agreements with respect to providing gas
from one to the other. "Oh, that's just a small play. Nothing to be
concerned about." A $400 billion deal. We've heard that it's
generational for us — but not, apparently, for the Russians and the
Chinese. But there you go.

Another thing that I wanted to highlight,
though, is that when the minister was confronted with the drop from 7
to 3½, he said: "We don't negotiate taxes" — funny that. "We consulted
behind closed doors" is what he said. I don't know. I'm just a simple
country doctor from Juan de Fuca, but from where I come from, when you
go in behind a closed door and you start at seven and you come out at
3½, there was probably a negotiation going on there. I don't know who
the minister is responsible to when he does this. But there you go.

He also said, when he was reminded of some
of the failings of the targets and the benchmarks that were
aspirationally set, as it turns out now rather than reality — goals, as
the Minister of Energy has suggested…. Aspirational. We're hopeful.
We're hopeful that sometime in the near future, I understand, we'll be
eliminating the debt — according to the minister's revised figures, in
2043. For those backbenchers counting at home, that's about seven
elections from now. So I'm hopeful that some of you will be here. I
know the member for West Vancouver–Capilano most assuredly will be, and
I will challenge him. We're behind time in Kitimat, apparently.

Now, the minister talked about a chance
meeting with some officials from Encana on a tour of the northeast. I
was the Energy critic for many years on this side of the House, and I
toured the northeast many times. I've spoke with all of the proponents.
I've talked to them candidly about the markets, and they've talked
candidly to me about the changing face of energy in North America — the
minister touched upon that — and in fact around the world.

Gas is trading higher in Asia than it is in
North America, and that's the single chance we have. But the gas in
Asia is tied to the price of oil. For those who haven't looked at their
business pages today, oil is trading below $80 a barrel and is
expected to be below $80 a barrel into the foreseeable future. What
does that do? That brings down the price of gas in Asia. What does that
do? It makes us less competitive over time.

Now, that may be an inconvenient truth for
the cheerleaders on the other side. I'm not being negative when I say
this. I'm identifying for the people who elected us on this side of the
House that all the good news that continues to come forward at every
one of these government-sponsored conferences and government-sponsored
press conferences where we put the LNG logos up on the wall as big as
we can make them.

Even though the Premier has created an industry
announcing things around LNG, the reality is that the market is
changing. And it has been changing for some time.

I, again, want to reiterate that the
challenge for the government is manyfold. They have to address the
issues of the day. They have to raise revenues. Gas revenues, I'll
remind the Minister of Energy…. Maybe he's not getting the briefings
that he should be on these matters. The revenues we are getting from
natural gas have been dropping for some time, not just because of the
price but because of a whole bunch of other factors — credits and so
on.

[1710]

I want to draw everyone's attention to a
writer, Peter Tertzakian, who is a noted resource economist. He wrote a
very, I think, thoughtful and also humorous — which is important to me
— piece in the Globe and Mail on the 19th of November of this year. He laid out a scenario whereby those who are here — whether it be Exxon, Petronas

He laid out a scenario whereby those who are
here, whether it be Exxon, Petronas, Shell, BG — all of those wood
fibre, those companies that are in British Columbia looking to make
significant final investment decisions — those people are going to have
to go back to their boards and get approval.

Mr. Tertzakian, an expert in this area,
understands the challenges of certainty and uncertainty. So he created
this scenario where someone would bring forward, "what's the situation
in British Columbia?" to their board.

Those are not market conditions. Those are
conditions that the governments of British Columbia, Canada and the
cities and communities around B.C. have to address. That's uncertainty.

But the opposition stands and says the
market is changing. The opposition stands and said, "You were just
making stuff up during the election campaign," does not influence these
final investment decisions. I would love it to be so.

I know in the attack piece that the member
for Nechako Lakes sent out with the good Liberal scribes in the
basement here at the Legislature, that there was some hope that I could
be blamed for single-handedly derailing LNG discussions in British
Columbia. If I only had such power.

I can't get appropriate ministers to take
accountability here, in my day job, but somehow, in the dark of night,
according to the member for Nechako, I'm going around scurrying about
trying to dissuade board of directors of Shell, Chevron, Exxon and a
host of others. I personally, and my colleagues on this side of the
House, are using our market power to discourage these final investment
decisions. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I support this initiative, and I will be
standing in support of this bill. It falls way short of what was
promised. Way short. It falls way short of what I believe we could have
accomplished, were we not consulting rather than negotiating our tax
frameworks with the various companies that want to invest here. But
that is that.

I know that my tours of the northeast and
the northwest, that there's a desire for this activity to take place.
By all means, there's debate. There are challenges ahead for the
government and all British Columbians, whether they be First Nation or
non-First Nation. Whether they be opposed to natural gas development,
where they want to have a better understanding of what the consequences
of hydraulic fracturing are.

These are issues, I would argue, that
government should spend time on. Rather than going around saying, "the
NDP hates LNG," why don't you go around explaining to the public why
this is profoundly important that we proceed. Not just with pitches
here in the Legislature and trumped up conferences where you invite
yourself to come and make presentations to yourself.

Instead go out and talk to the people of
British Columbia. Explain to them in genuine real terms why this is
important, why we need jobs in the northwest.

I was in Kitimat last week. I met with
Richard Prokopanko, who has been working for Rio Tinto Alcan for
decades. He reminded me, in the briefing that my colleague from Skeena
and I were given, that I have been working on that file for 20 years.
He said he has documents that I had signed, going back to the 1990s,
about trying to get that project off the ground. It took 20 years.

I'm led to believe one of the largest
capital investments in this province to date and it took 20 years, with
an existing established company, in a town that wanted them to be
there, with all of the infrastructure in place already. It took 20
years.

When we stand on this side of the House and
say your pipe dream is coming unravelled, it's not out of anger. It's
out of sadness and disappointment that you set the bar so ridiculously
high that you can't possibly meet it.

How does that help the economy? How does
that help reduce uncertainty? How does that help give confidence to the
people of B.C. that you know what the heck you're doing? It doesn't.
Our job on this side of the House is to continue to remind you on that
side of the House that you've got a lot of work to do.

[1715]

Instead of going, as the Premier did, to
Ottawa and lobby for more temporary foreign workers so we can realize
our generational opportunity, instead of travelling to India and
talking about training workers there to come and work in British
Columbia — not as landed immigrants, not as those coming here with a
pathway to citizenship — but as temporary foreign workers. Why not
instead, while you are in the room giving away

HSE - 20141124 PM 046/mjh/1715

Travelling to India and
talking about training workers there to come and work in British
Columbia — not as landed immigrants, not as those coming here with a
pathway to citizenship, but as temporary foreign workers — why not
instead, while you're in the room, giving away 3½ percent of your tax
room, why don't you say: "I want hard and fast commitments for training
and jobs for British Columbians"? That makes a whole lot more sense.

We can have expressed guarantees from
various proponents for jobs here in British Columbia, for training
opportunities here in British Columbia. Project labour agreements are
very common practice in British Columbia. Certainly, with the right
government selling these innovative proposals that…. I think it was
W.A.C. Bennett, if I'm not mistaken, that started it. So the member for
Westside-Kelowna might find something in the archive down at Socred HQ
next time she's driving by that would remind her that if you invest in
people and if you put people first, you might get a better return than
if you close the door with some of the biggest companies in the known
universe and say: "What could we do for you?"

Instead, why don't you open up the doors in
this place and say: "What can we do for the people of B.C.?" Let's
protect our resource and ensure that we get an appropriate return to
the Crown for the resource. Let's make sure we have guarantees for
British Columbians getting jobs first and foremost, that training is in
place.

Let's live up to the requirements of the
Supreme Court decision with respect to Tsilhqot'in and ensure that it's
not just the Haisla and the Nisga'a that are enthusiastic about this
but the Wet'suwet'en and a whole host of other bands from the Alberta
border to tidewater. Let's make sure that we're actually working for
partnerships, not just pandering.

Most importantly, let's ensure that we're
protecting our air, water and land for this and future generations. You
do that by realizing we have to live up to the climate commitments we
made in this Legislature in 2008. We have to realize somewhere along
the line that when you say, "The greenest in the world from wellhead to
tidewater," you're actually going to achieve that. But that's not what
we got with Bill 2. I know we're debating Bill 6, hon. Speaker, and I
know I have some latitude just because I'm smiling at you.

But the fundamental challenge for the people
of British Columbia who look at this industry is: "What are you going
to do to protect us?" We see it at Burnaby Mountain right now, citizens
saying: "What are you going to do to protect the lands, for us and for
those who come after us?"

These are fundamental questions that are
skirted by in this government's desire to say that the NDP is against
everything. Well, you won't be able to say that with Bill 6. It's going
to stand side by side with you and vote in favour of it. As deficient
as it may be, it does provide us with an opportunity to reduce some of
the uncertainty that has been rampant on this file.

I want to also finally say to those members
on the opposite side who just like to make politics out of this stuff,
if we're genuinely, all of us, interested in growing the economy and
making sure that British Columbians benefit from this resource, this
opportunity that has benefited us for many decades and hopefully will
continue to do so in the future, let's put the politics aside just for
five minutes, if the member for Westside-Kelowna could possibly do
that. Instead of saying, "It's all about us," why don't we say: "What
about making it all about the people of British Columbia?" Why don't we
try that for a change? Why don't we put the people at the front of the
agenda rather than the politics?

Let's have a real discussion. Petronas has
serious issues with Lelu Island, with respect to salmon and with their
Prince Rupert proposal. There are serious concerns in Kitimat about
airshed issues. These can be overcome, but hard work is involved, and
honesty is also involved — honesty with the public that, yes, we hear
your concerns, and we're going to take steps to alleviate them. We need
to ensure that we have vibrant communities in the northeast and the
northwest. I want to see liquefied natural gas produced in Prince
Rupert. I want to see a facility in Kitimat and any other community that
wants it here in British Columbia.

But let's be honest about the consequences.
It's not all upside. Everybody in British Columbia knows, when they get
up in the morning, it's not all sunshine and roses — well, everyone
but perhaps the member for Westside-Kelowna. But the rest of us, who
live in the real world, understand that there are trade-offs and
consequences and compromises that have to be made to achieve our goals
long-term.

On this side of the House, we'll support
this bill, provided the four conditions that we've laid out are met.
I'm hopeful that the government will listen to some of the issues that
are raised during committee stage and try to make this bill a little
bit better so that we can all achieve the aspirational goals that the
Minister of Finance alluded to when he spoke at first reading.

[1720]

I'll end my remarks by thanking those people
here for your attention. It's been rare that I've stood in this place
without someone yelling at me. I want to

HSE - 20141124 PM 047/cgl/1720

a little bit better so we
can all achieve the aspirational goals that the Minister of Finance
alluded to when he spoke at first reading.

I will end my remarks by thanking those
people here for their attention. It has been rare that I've stood in
this place without someone yelling at me. I want to thank those members
on the other side for giving me the opportunity to stand, genuinely,
and put forward how I feel about this very important issue. It's, I
believe, important to the people in this room on this side of the House
— and I think it's important on that side as well — that you hear
genuinely how we feel about this, unvarnished, without the aid of the
partisan filters that we all carry here far too often

Benefits accruing to the province from LNG will never ever come close to the levels promised by Christy Clark and her band of traveling grifters, in fact many believe, as do I that LNG make sink us financially, we were told the same high-flying lies by Gordon about run-of -river projects, fables of being an energy super-power...That industry now bleeds $400 million dollars per year and rising directly out of BC Hydro`s coffers..

Site C dam which is being pushed by these same BC Liberal grifters...$10 to $12 billion dollar cost, a cost BC Hydro will have to bear, even at the best interest rates possible yearly interest charges on that debt will be in the $400 million to $500 million range, for decades no less...

Site C dam build is for a select reason...How the greenhouse gas LNG plant scam is about to go down(if any energy giants actually build), and how it relates to directly to Site C..

The BC Liberal`s greenhouse gas bill as it relates to LNG plants..

These grifters have set "intensity" targets for LNG plants...If LNG plants can achieve emission intensity levels of 0.16 to 0.20 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions for every tonne of LNG liquified they will qualify for credits, credits issued by the BC Liberal Government, the BC Liberals claim these credits have no "cash" value, that`s not true, these credits will be used to pay LNG plants hydro-electric bills..

That`s right folks...LNG plants will purchase just enough clean hydro electric power, perhaps 15% to 20% of their power needs...This maneuver will result in NEW modern LNG plants achieving these intensity targets, thus they will receive Government credits, which in turn will be used to pay their electrical bill..

It`s an accounting scam...Site C dam`s enormous cost, all those yearly interest payments...You dear friends will be paying the whole shot for that Dam power, let`s call it illusion power...
Illusion....Despite the BC Liberal`s "intensity targets"..The illusion is their claim of greenest LNG in the world, patently false, there is no clean LNG....Even with LNG plants achieving these intensity targets ...Petronas`s project alone, counting both plant emissions and upstream GHG emission will be emitting an astronomical amount of hot gas....10 million tonnes of GHG from one LNG operation...5 LNG plants and their combined operations would more than double the province of British Columbia`s entire green-house-gas emissions total...

LNG is not clean, these bore holes leak methane and other gasses, massive amounts of water required, ...Up north, stand-by buses sit outside every school, at the ready to evacuate students in the event of instant death sour-gas leaks...Airtight windows at the northern schools in case there is not enough time to evacuate the students..
Kitimat and Prince Rupert airsheds can`t accommodate more than 2 LNG plants...You`ll kill the local populous, slow poisonous death...an LNG tanker explosion would most likely vaporize those towns, there is more explosive power in one LNG tanker than there was in the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan in WWII...Accidents can happen, god-forbid..

Petronas, has a history of tax evasion, offshore accounts,, arbitrage and accounting tricks, these companies do not want to part with any money..

We also have solar power which is now as cheaper or in some cases even cheaper than fossil fuel electricity, ..Nuclear thorium reactors are about to take off, and recently there are claims of clean, no emissions, the holy grail of power Nuclear Fusion in a couple of years, if true LNG will go the way of the Dodo bird, ...and go the way of half the animal species on earth in the last 40 years...Extinct.

Let me say straight up....I`m not happy with our BC NDP..It`s not what I would do as a party, endorsing LNG, but I do understand the predicament they are in..

We have a corrupt beholden to CAPP and big oil media...Those who pay the piper call the tune..Corporations own our media and corporations are about greed, no matter how they achieve, who or what dies, anyone who stands in their way get mowed down..

Keith Baldrey, Tom Fletcher, Sean Leslie, ....These legislative reporters have been mailing in their articles, deliberately obtuse, not a lick of research, and it`s not that they`re stupid(well, maybe in Tom Fletcher`s case)...They have their marching orders...Any NDP infraction front pages on our dalies light up, every nugget of dirt exposed, scorched, the slightest connection blazed open, innuendo, speculation and leaps are made...Whereas any crime, sin, sell-out the corporate band of grifting BC Liberals do is tucked away, softened, modified and turned like a screw...Advertised as the new good...

Baldrey, Good and Palmer used excuses like..."BC Liberals have been elected again since BC Rail was sold, therefore the issue is dead"....Yet Gordon Campbell and Wally Oppal for years said.."no comment on BC Rail, it`s before the courts"...

Keith Baldrey, Sean Leslie..Tom Fletcher are still using the same tactic as to the "quick wins" scandal..Burnaby hospital scandal..

Our bought media will label the NDP as anti business, socialists, blah blah blah...So tiresome.
I have morals, The Straight Goods can`t stoop to that low-down-dishonest knuckle-dragging level, I look in the mirror and not prepared to cringe, not prepared to sell-out integrity, break reporting laws, be unethical, not prepared to turn journalistic integrity on its ear..

There are sayings..such as.."if you can`t beat them, join them"
There are others..."What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive"
Well...one more.

Sunday, November 23, 2014

Global LNG-Prices slide as Australia, Nigeria offer fresh supply

"Asian spot liquefied natural gas (LNG) prices extended losses this
week as demand in December and January flat-lined, which is likely to
have reduced interest for two sell tenders by Australia and Nigeria.

Spot LNG prices LNG-AS for January delivery fell 70 cents
week-on-week to around $10.10 per million British thermal units (mmBtu)
on Friday, while prices for December delivery dropped to $9.85 per
mmBtu.

Pockets of demand from Indian and Chinese buyers could not hold back
the sell-off, which extended for a fifth straight week, traders said.

More supply is due from Australia’s North West Shelf export project,
which on Monday will close a tender to sell at least four cargoes for
December and January loading.The tender is likely to draw limited demand from Asian buyers, which
are facing lower winter import costs for the first time since the
Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, thanks to high inventories left over
from a mild summer and winter.

“Buyers are careful to indicate any demand. They’ve been saying for
months in a very disciplined manner that they don’t need any cargoes
whatsoever,” a trader from an oil major said.“But they do buy here and there. If you call them, they will say they’re not buying anything until April,” he said.

A single-cargo tender by Nigeria’s Bonny liquefaction plant to sell
LNG for loading in mid-December was due to close on Friday, sources
said.

But with Asian demand falling and the spread between Atlantic and
Pacific markets collapsing, the volumes were likely be consumed within
the Atlantic Basin, not Asia.

Europe is set to become a dumping ground for the world’s unwanted gas
supplies this winter as Asian demand for sea-borne shipments fizzles
out, leaving dealers to seek out willing buyers at rock-bottom prices.

Traders see LNG at $8 per mmBtu as achievable as mild weather
forecasts dampen Asian demand and weak oil prices add pressure to spot
LNG as long-term, oil-linked LNG deliveries become more competitive.

British Columbia`s LNG proposals, PETRONAS..EXXON MOBILE..STEELHEAD..WOODFIBRE none of these energy companies can deliver any LNG at that price without incurring massive losses, the break even price for British Columbia`s proposed LNG plants is around $12 to $13 dollars per BTU.....look around, the price is already lower with even more capacity coming online..

There`s a massive LNG glut on the market with tonnes more capacity coming online from both Qatar, and Australia..

Any British Columbia LNG proposal, if any come to fruition and are selling LNG at these prices they will be claiming losses, not profits, will Canadian taxpayers be forced to not only rebate back LNG plant build costs but write off these losses against any future taxes..?

If these giant energy companies aren`t making any money there will be no tax money to collect..

"That appears to be what's happening now. The world already has more LNG trading
capacity than it needs: There were about 286 million tons a year of LNG export capacity globally in
2013, while global LNG trade amounted to just 237 million tons.

That's in part a
reflection of a big surge by Qatar, the world's leading exporter of liquefied
natural gas. Between 2008 and 2011, Qatar built a spate of new projects and now
has 77 million tons a year of LNG export capacity.

Now, other gas-producing
countries are scrambling to add even more. Australia has three big LNG projects
operating and seven more that will come online in the next few years. If all
goes as planned, that would push Australia's total export capacity to 83
million tons a year by 2017, which would allow the country to overtake Qatar as
the world's top LNG exporter. Even more export projects are under discussion
there.

Meanwhile, the United States is moving to take advantage of its own natural gas
production boom to turn from gas importer to gas exporter. The Department of
Energy has conditionally approved eightU.S. LNG export projects, with a total capacity
of more than 80 million tons a year; analysts expect that at least five of those projects could actually get built,
with an export capacity of close to 70 million tons. Canada is also hoping to
ship natural gas to Asia.

As if that weren't enough, newcomers to the global energy boom, including
countries in East Africa and the eastern Mediterranean, are also eyeing LNG
exports as a way to fuel their own economic development.

The problem is figuring out just how much demand there really will be for all
that gas. Asia, and especially China, is expected to be the main driver,
accounting for the overwhelming bulk of natural gas demand in the years to come, according to the IEA.

But there are several huge question marks that could radically affect those
projections. Japan's imports of LNG have surged since 2011, when it shut down
all its nuclear power plants in the wake of the Fukushima accident. Buying so
much expensive gas is not a long-term option for Japan -- fuel imports pushed
the country to its first trade deficit in more than three decades. The question
for Shinzo Abe's government is not whether, but when, the country will
restart at least a portion of its nuclear reactors, which would severely dampen
Japanese demand for LNG.

The other big question marks are in China. In theory, as China cleans up its
economy and environment, it will need a lot more natural gas. But it's not
clear just how much -- or whether it has already lined up much of what it will
need.

Beijing has already signed one huge, $400 billion natural gas deal with Russia to get
significant amounts of Siberian gas through a pipeline. The two countries are
reportedly in talks on another gas deal that would give China even more Russian gas,
further reducing Beijing's demand for expensive imported LNG. China is also trying, to tap into its own abundant
shale reserves to ramp up its domestic production of natural gas, which, if
successful, would reduce the country's need for LNG even more."______________

I always knew we would end up here, 4 wasted years by the BC Liberals, LNG LNG LNG...almost 2 years since Christy Clark and the Liberals lied their way to victory...Too bad these inept quasi Conservatives/BC Liberals have no plan B

Friday, November 21, 2014

Statement by PETRONAS President & Group CEO Tan Sri Dato` Shamsul Azhar Abbas Regarding LNG Development in British Columbia

Vancouver British Columbia October 6th/2014-Sri Dato` Shamsul Azhar Abbas made the following statements today regarding the proposed investment to build and operate The Pacific Northwest LNG LTD. export facility in Prince Rupert, British Columbia and its associated natural gas reserves operated by Progress energy Canada LTD. located primarily in the north Montney region of northeast British Columbia

PETRONAS is encouraged by the commitment expressed by the British Columbia Government regarding the Pacific Northwest LNG (PNW LNG) project during recent meeting with premier Christy Clark and Minister Coleman in Vancouver. During the round of meetings, PETRONAS and the Government of British Columbia agreed on clear milestones, action plans and deliverables for both parties to support project competitiveness necessary to undertake a final investment decision(FID) by mid December 2014.In addition, PETRONAS will continue to work with the Government of Canada and its agencies to advance the regulatory process and clarify the fiscal framework associated with this new industry in Canada.Fundamentally PETRONAS believes that the PNW LNG project has the ability to monetise, add value and link BC natural gas to the global market, to the benefits of Canadians, especially British Columbians, nonetheless the reality of the global LNG market is that we are facing overhang and decreasing demand that creates downward pressure on LNG prices, in this market environment, the ability to secure market and customers is paramount.Coupled with softening crude prices, there is a need for international energy companies like PETRONAS to seriously prioritize and reassess our investments. The proposed fiscal package and regulatory pace in Canada threatens the global competitiveness of the PNW LNG project. This is further exacerbated by preliminary project costs, which indicates cost of local contractors to be higher and not benchmarked to global contractor`s costs.The additional tax and high cost environment will negatively impact the project`s economic viability and competitiveness, in fact, in our last portfolio review exercise, the current project economics appeared marginal. Without material cost reduction efforts cross the project we`ll have a tough time reaching a positive final investment decision by mid December 2014.In order to remain competitive, PETRONAS needs to secure consensus on key principles vital to the success of this project by the end of October. Missing that date will the impact of having to defer our investments until the next marketing window, anticipated in 10-15 years. At this juncture PETRONAS firmly believes on the urgent need for stakeholders to collaborate and come to an agreement, rather than act as opposing parties at the negotiation table.In light of this, the next few weeks will be critical in ensuring commitments made during the last meeting will be followed through by creating a tangible environment which stimulate competitiveness and investor`s confidence in British Columbia. PETRONAS and its partners look forward to working with the British Columbian and Canadian Governments to advance with pace, clarity and purpose in turning the vision of a Canadian LNG industry into a reality.

India workers offered B.C. 's LNG jobs by Christy Clark

__________________________

Reported widely and well known to LNG industry experts these LNG plants are not going to be built in British Columbia, they are going to be built in Japan and South Korea...This fact was admitted by British Gas and others, including

"BG(British Gas) intends to build a facility on
Ridley Island capable of producing 21 million tonnes of LNG a year.
Called Prince Rupert LNG, it would be built overseas in modules and shipped to Prince Rupert for assembly."

Laura Lau, Senior Portfolio Manager at Brompton Funds on BNN stated last month(October 16th/2014), (as
did British Gas 2 years ago) that proposed LNG plants in British Columbia
will not be built in British Columbia...Laura Lau stated that these LNG
plants are actually going to be built in S. Korea or Japan, these
modules and mainframes will be built in S. Korea or Japan and barged to
British Columbia where they will be assembled.

You can click the below link and watch, hear Laura Lau admit where these frames and modules are to be built..(just past the 4 minute mark)

(just past the 4 minute mark is the offending statement by Laura Lau)

Petronas and the BC Government are as we speak lobbying Ottawa to allow LNG plants manufacturer status so these foreign energy giants can write off everything against taxes, against Canadian taxes, including foreign labour and foreign built mainframes and modules, ..We are talking about $5 to $6 billion per year in tax write-offs..Per LNG plant!

_____________

The below link is an article about spill after spill in Alberta, toxic oil and toxic fracking fluid spills, ..no media reported any of the spills, the silence was/is deafening..

____________

There`s a whole lot more...PETRONAS wants no part of any environmental assessments, they want their project to proceed regardless of destroying the Skeena river`s wild salmon population..

It has been suggested that Christy Clark and Rich Coleman are preparing to walk all over First Nations and make an order in council(OIC), a private cabinet decision out of the public`s eye on exempting PETRONAS from satisfying First Nations and British Columbians legitimate concerns over destroying wild salmon, in other words, an OIC exempting Petronas from any environmental assessments..If you think I`m mistaken...Check out the below information, BC Liberals through OIC exempted LNG from environmental assessments, caught red-handed, that betrayal to First Nations and to BCers is still ongoing..

____________

The 3-day conference, titled “Striking the Balance”, was designed to
discuss both the economic opportunities and potential environmental
impacts of increased fracking in the nation’s territory to supply a
gas-hungry, proposed BC LNG industry. But things got off on the wrong
foot when the BC Liberal government announced on Tuesday that new sweet
gas processing plants would be exempted from environmental assessment.
The news came as a shock to First Nations, who immediately made it clear
they had not been consulted about the change.

Chief Gale alluded to the betrayal in her comments from the podium at the event today:

"The
word from my elders is you treat people kind. You treat them with
respect even when they’re stabbing you in the back…so I respectfully ask
government to remove themselves from the room."

______________

Despite First Nations standing firm against PETRONAS, ..First Nations are not opposed to LNG but PETRONAS`s decision to build on LELU island is all wrong, BC`s second most productive wild salmon river the SKEENA would be decimated..PETRONAS can find another location, with 17 LNG proposals locations are plentiful, but not all locations are practical or environmentally friendly, LELU island is one of those locations ill-fitted for LNG..

_____________

_______________

2 days ago it was quietly announced that BC is getting 2 new ferries, they`re to be built in Turkey,..odd shaped ferries at that, not people movers, cargo movers..I was wondering why, and what these foreign built ferries are going to be used for..

__________________________________

Sedef Shipyard to build Seaspan’s dual-fuelled ferries

Seaspan
Ferries said that Sedef Shipyard of Turkey has been awarded the
contract for the construction of two new dual-fuelled (diesel and LNG)
ferries.

The 148.9 metre ferries, both expected to be in operation by late
2016, will accommodate up to 59 trailers. Construction is scheduled to
start in early 2015.SFC’s contract award comes on the heels of an extensive and
competitive procurement process that included more than 40 shipyards
around the world, as well as a thorough analysis of Seaspan Shipyard’s
capacity to construct these vessels at its new facility at Vancouver
Shipyards, the company said in a statement.

“Our decision to have a non-Seaspan shipyard build our new ferries was not made lightly, but it was a simple decision based on capacity,” said Jonathan Whitworth, CEO, Seaspan

____________

That answer to the above ferry question is simple...Those Turkish built ferries are to be used to transport foreign built LNG modules and mainframes, all courtesy of a complicit and compliant BC Liberal Government..

Way to go Christy Clark, fantastic Rich Coleman..

you just sold British Columbia`s workers out, gave away our resources..

and in typical BC Liberal economic fashion, no more British Columbia built ferries, No more British Columbia Rail...No more respect to the public, a gang of thugs accountable to no one....And no media scrutiny...none at all!